What are England to expect if the boss lacks the stomach for a fight?

Jeff Powell

Last updated at 00:00 14 February 2003

DID Sven Goran Eriksson have any idea how humiliating it would be for the English to lose to Australia at football? Probably not. What matters most to the manager of the England football team, himself or the national pride? You've probably guessed it.

Is it any wonder that England are going back faster than the French from the front line? Not to me, it isn't.

Can it really be only five wins in 17 matches since the miracle - or was it a mirage? - in Munich? The only surprise to me is that it is so many.

There should have been more defeats, that's for sure. Greece at home, Slovakia away, Sweden in Japan to name but three.

Were he not an alien - with all the mystique that goes with it - Eriksson's cover would have been blown some time ago. Now the critics really are coming home to Roo. Australia did not just beat England on Wednesday, they exposed just how little England has come to mean to the men in whom everyone else, from the FA to the fans, place their trust.

Every football team are cast in the image of their manager. The first-half performance by England's regulars reflected the absence of patriotism in their commanding officer.

This is not so much the fault of Eriksson as of those who employ him. They should have known better than to give this peculiarly English job to a foreigner, any foreigner, in the first place.

Nevertheless, Eriksson's own lack of passion has infected the dressing room. The players were a disgrace. But what are we to expect if their boss lacks the stomach for a fight?

Nothing could be more feeble than Eriksson's acquiescence to any demand made by the clubs. This may make his life cosier but it sells England further down the river.

By committing himself in advance to replacing all his first XI at half- time, Eriksson paid lip service to the Premiership as a priority over the national team.

His rush to substitutions had raised a suspicion already that he was trying to get his excuses in first when it came to friendlies. But there was no hiding place at Upton Park, not even behind Ferguson, Houllier and Wenger.

It was while his established players were on the pitch that the game was lost. If they had been led to believe that this match was unimportant, then Eriksson was the messenger. Not only that, but the experience of other managers this week begs the question of whether or not any agreement with the Premiership managers was as strict and binding as Eriksson's actions implied.

Australia's Frank Farina reported no problems with the English clubs who pay the wages of most of his side and kept them in action for as long as was necessary.

On the same night, the World Cup-winning best of Brazil's foreign legion turned out in China, while France's large England-based contingent mostly played throughout their defeat by the Czech Republic.

FIFA give all national managers the statutory authority to call on players as they see fit. Why does Eriksson not invoke that right? It benefits him nothing to give in so meekly. Rather, it encourages a mood of surrender among his troops.

His latest, blame-dodging wheeze is to move all friendlies to after the end of the season. Priceless, that, coming from the man who You suspect he would really like to do away with friendlies. Come to that, if England hardly matters, why play any competitive games, paying customers under false pretences, the way it was at West Ham. complains that his chances of winning a tournament are ruined because the summer holidays are too short.

either? That way his record would look a lot better.

As for training get-togethers instead of matches, what is the point of those since Eriksson does no coaching? Some players say he hardly speaks to them.

So here's an idea: Instead of paying him Pounds 3million a year to say little or nothing, why not give him Pounds 5m to stay away altogether? Then there would be less chance of money being filched from the pockets of the Farina did not even give us the consolation of accusing him of Aussie gloating. Instead, he reminded his countrymen that they could not consider themselves a major force in football until they had qualified for the World Cup.

So where does that leave England? When a bunch of novices who have never played together before shape up better than the big boys, we are down a deep hole indeed.

This brought into focus just how rudimentary the preparation of England's championship team has become under Swedish leadership. Four-four-two and up to you.

At least it dawned on those shamefaced stars who were hooted from the pitch at the interval that they owed the public something. Several of them volunteered to go back out, face the discordant music and try to pull back the two goals they had conceded so pathetically.

This was Eriksson's chance to unite with his players in taking a stand against the self- centred clubs. History is likely to prove that it was here he missed his moment.

As inflexible as he has been perceived to be inscrutable, he stuck to his servile, pre-set game plan.